|
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
On May 30, 12:23*pm, Mr Mappy wrote:
I noticed that there was a piece in Rail magazine proposing the renaming of London Liverpool Street to London Broadgate*. I suggested this last year in a letter published in Rail**, but maybe it's not an original idea, anyone know of any earlier proposals to lose that confusing Liverpool Street? Eminently sensible. The old fashioned railway parlance of using the suffix 'junction' should be reviewed. For example, the inappropriate Watford Junction, St Helens Junction and Yeovil Junctions would be more helpful as Watford Mainline, St Helens South and Yeovil South. And the yet to open Dalston Junction (not a junction at all) would be better as Dalston Lane. Watfor IS a junction. Everyone knows it as Watford Junction. It will be even more so if the Met. ever makes it there. Some are just wrong - Euston Square on the Met isn't on Euston Square (this is in front of Euston mainline station). This would be better as Euston Road. How about just rebuiding Euston Square in front of Euston and making it into a proper interchange. |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
On Fri, 30 May 2008 13:02:33 -0700 (PDT), 1506
wrote: On May 30, 12:23*pm, Mr Mappy wrote: I noticed that there was a piece in Rail magazine proposing the renaming of London Liverpool Street to London Broadgate*. I suggested this last year in a letter published in Rail**, but maybe it's not an original idea, anyone know of any earlier proposals to lose that confusing Liverpool Street? Eminently sensible. Oh? What about :- Oxford Street (not in Oxford) Victoria (not in Australia) Kings Cross (ditto) Waterloo (not in Belgium) XXXXXX Road (usually not in XXXXXX) Dozens of Underground stations not in the place of the same name. Anyway, there's already a Broadgate in Oldham (and Nottingham and Lincoln and ...) so by your own reasoning that name can't be used for a London station. snip |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
On Fri, 30 May 2008 13:02:33 -0700 (PDT), 1506
wrote: How about just rebuiding Euston Square in front of Euston and making it into a proper interchange. If I'm getting my bearings right, the entrance is all that would need rebuilding - the other end of the platforms are damn near Euston station compared with where the entrance currently is. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
In message , at 23:07:35 on
Fri, 30 May 2008, Charles Ellson remarked: Anyway, there's already a Broadgate in Oldham (and Nottingham and Lincoln and ...) Broadgate in Nottingham is a small street in Beeston miles from anywhere you'd expect a railway station. You didn't mean Broadmarsh, did you (always reminds me of a cross between Broadmoor and Belmarsh). -- Roland Perry |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
On May 31, 8:46 am, (Neil Williams)
wrote: How about just rebuiding Euston Square in front of Euston and making it into a proper interchange. If I'm getting my bearings right, the entrance is all that would need rebuilding - the other end of the platforms are damn near Euston station compared with where the entrance currently is. Yep - its a blindingly obvious thing to do. -- Nick |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
On Sat, 31 May 2008 13:17:58 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 23:07:35 on Fri, 30 May 2008, Charles Ellson remarked: Anyway, there's already a Broadgate in Oldham (and Nottingham and Lincoln and ...) Broadgate in Nottingham is a small street in Beeston miles from anywhere you'd expect a railway station. You didn't mean Broadmarsh, did you (always reminds me of a cross between Broadmoor and Belmarsh). As a steet, I'd picked it as a (probably) more established use of the name Broadgate than a "here today, gone tomorrow" [(c) Robin Day] office development. |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
In message , at 23:05:53 on
Sat, 31 May 2008, Charles Ellson remarked: Broadgate in Nottingham is a small street in Beeston miles from anywhere you'd expect a railway station. You didn't mean Broadmarsh, did you (always reminds me of a cross between Broadmoor and Belmarsh). As a steet, I'd picked it as a (probably) more established use of the name Broadgate than a "here today, gone tomorrow" [(c) Robin Day] office development. But Broadgate in Nottingham is miles from a railway station, so why use it as a name? -- Roland Perry |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
On Fri, 30 May 2008, 1506 wrote:
On May 30, 12:23*pm, Mr Mappy wrote: I noticed that there was a piece in Rail magazine proposing the renaming of London Liverpool Street to London Broadgate*. I suggested this last year in a letter published in Rail**, but maybe it's not an original idea, anyone know of any earlier proposals to lose that confusing Liverpool Street? Eminently sensible. Are we sure it isn't London Bishopsgate? That would be a much better name. Or, hey, how about Broad Street? tom -- I do not think we will have to wait for long. |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 10:12:40 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 23:05:53 on Sat, 31 May 2008, Charles Ellson remarked: Broadgate in Nottingham is a small street in Beeston miles from anywhere you'd expect a railway station. You didn't mean Broadmarsh, did you (always reminds me of a cross between Broadmoor and Belmarsh). As a steet, I'd picked it as a (probably) more established use of the name Broadgate than a "here today, gone tomorrow" [(c) Robin Day] office development. But Broadgate in Nottingham is miles from a railway station, so why use it as a name? The point is that there are probably many stations somewhat closer to a relatively-permanent "Broadgate" than Liverpool Street station is. |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
On 31 May, 20:08, D7666 wrote: On May 31, 8:46 am, (Neil Williams) wrote: How about just rebuiding Euston Square in front of Euston and making it into a proper interchange. If I'm getting my bearings right, the entrance is all that would need rebuilding - the other end of the platforms are damn near Euston station compared with where the entrance currently is. Yep - its a blindingly obvious thing to do. But not perhaps as blindingly simple as one might like it to be! There were some recent murmurs of a significant redevelopment at Euston, replete with an air rights development in place of the parcel deck, and I'm sure I recall some vague notion that this would also entail linking up Euston Square with Euston. In the meantime Euston Square is a useful is a little secret for those in the know, far from the madding crowd. |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 11:43:15 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote: In the meantime Euston Square is a useful is a little secret for those in the know, far from the madding crowd. The mass parade of commuters between it and Euston on a daily basis (sometimes including me if I'm running a bit late) would suggest it's far from a secret. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008, 1506 wrote: On May 30, 12:23 pm, Mr Mappy wrote: I noticed that there was a piece in Rail magazine proposing the renaming of London Liverpool Street to London Broadgate*. I suggested this last year in a letter published in Rail**, but maybe it's not an original idea, anyone know of any earlier proposals to lose that confusing Liverpool Street? Eminently sensible. Are we sure it isn't London Bishopsgate? That would be a much better name. Or, hey, how about Broad Street? tom A splendid time is guaranteed for all. -- Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 01:02:33PM -0700, 1506 wrote:
On May 30, 12:23=A0pm, Mr Mappy wrote: I noticed that there was a piece in Rail magazine proposing the renaming of London Liverpool Street to London Broadgate*. I suggested this last year in a letter published in Rail**, but maybe it's not an original idea, anyone know of any earlier proposals to lose that confusing Liverpool Street? Eminently sensible. What's so confusing about Liverpool St? Is it just because trains from there don't go to Liverpool? Cos if it is, I fear there's an awful lot of renaming to do! eg, London Road in Brighton doesn't have any services to London. -- David Cantrell | Godless Liberal Elitist I'm in retox |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
In message , at 11:54:21
on Mon, 2 Jun 2008, David Cantrell remarked: What's so confusing about Liverpool St? Is it just because trains from there don't go to Liverpool? Cos if it is, I fear there's an awful lot of renaming to do! eg, London Road in Brighton doesn't have any services to London. The confusion is quite simple: many tourists, especially from north America, habitually leave off the "street", so a train to "Liverpool" and a train to "Liverpool St", are synonymous. Add to that the extra confusion because the Liverpool station also has "Street" in its name. -- Roland Perry |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
Roland Perry wrote:
The confusion is quite simple: many tourists, especially from north America, habitually leave off the "street", so a train to "Liverpool" and a train to "Liverpool St", are synonymous. When these North Americans visit NYC and use the subway, do they get off at Houston Street expecting to find themselves at NASA? And what about in Paris when they get the Metro to Rome? If they do, they deserve all they get. Peter Beale |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:54:21 on Mon, 2 Jun 2008, David Cantrell remarked: What's so confusing about Liverpool St? Is it just because trains from there don't go to Liverpool? Cos if it is, I fear there's an awful lot of renaming to do! eg, London Road in Brighton doesn't have any services to London. The confusion is quite simple: many tourists, especially from north America, habitually leave off the "street", so a train to "Liverpool" and a train to "Liverpool St", are synonymous. Add to that the extra confusion because the Liverpool station also has "Street" in its name. There are stations which have trains to London Liverpool St as well as Liverpool Lime St, including Stansted Airport. Former gripper Ross Hamilton from uk.railway once said that the average Stansted to Liverpool train would have more than one passenger who had wanted the London train. |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
In message , at 12:44:23 on Mon, 2
Jun 2008, Peter Beale remarked: Roland Perry wrote: The confusion is quite simple: many tourists, especially from north America, habitually leave off the "street", so a train to "Liverpool" and a train to "Liverpool St", are synonymous. When these North Americans visit NYC and use the subway, do they get off at Houston Street expecting to find themselves at NASA? Of course not, they wouldn't expect to be able to buy (and even less want to buy) a railway ticket to Houston in NY. And what about in Paris when they get the Metro to Rome? If they do, they deserve all they get. That's more an economic issue, because if they asked for a ticket to Rome, and it cost a couple of Euros, I'd agree with you that they shouldn't expect to on a trip to Italy. But if you are Stansted Airport with a £20 ticket and two almost identical trains to choose from "does this one go to Liverpool" is quite a sensible question. -- Roland Perry |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
|
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
|
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
|
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
On 2 Jun, 23:18, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote: In article , (Roland Perry) wrote: (snip) That's more an economic issue, because if they asked for a ticket to Rome, and it cost a couple of Euros, I'd agree with you that they shouldn't expect to on a trip to Italy. But if you are Stansted Airport with a £20 ticket and two almost identical trains to choose from "does this one go to Liverpool" is quite a sensible question. Problem solved. There are no longer any trains to Liverpool from Stansted. That was easy. Although the problem (in as much as it is a problem) still exists at Norwich, for example. How comes the yanks developed this nomenclature anyway? |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
In message .uk, at
23:18:00 on Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Colin Rosenstiel remarked: But if you are Stansted Airport with a £20 ticket and two almost identical trains to choose from "does this one go to Liverpool" is quite a sensible question. Problem solved. There are no longer any trains to Liverpool from Stansted. That's been the case for quite a while now, ever since they split the "service" at Birmingham to make it "more reliable". However, "is this the train for Liverpool" is still true, if somewhat less plausible. -- Roland Perry |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
In message
, at 15:41:21 on Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Mizter T remarked: Problem solved. There are no longer any trains to Liverpool from Stansted. That was easy. Although the problem (in as much as it is a problem) still exists at Norwich, for example. And Ely and Peterborough. How comes the yanks developed this nomenclature anyway? I've been thinking about this, and it's probably because they give more directions by "block", identified by the names of the road either side, than by name of road junction. So the Empire State Building is at 5th and 34th. "5th *Avenue* and 34th *Street*" is such a mouthful that the "avenue/street" gets dropped. -- Roland Perry |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
|
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
|
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
On Jun 1, 7:43 pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 31 May, 20:08, D7666 wrote: On May 31, 8:46 am, (Neil Williams) wrote: How about just rebuiding Euston Square in front of Euston and making it into a proper interchange. If I'm getting my bearings right, the entrance is all that would need rebuilding - the other end of the platforms are damn near Euston station compared with where the entrance currently is. Yep - its a blindingly obvious thing to do. But not perhaps as blindingly simple as one might like it to be! There were some recent murmurs of a significant redevelopment at Euston, replete with an air rights development in place of the parcel deck, and I'm sure I recall some vague notion that this would also entail linking up Euston Square with Euston. In the meantime Euston Square is a useful is a little secret for those in the know, far from the madding crowd. Maybe Euston Sq could have two entrances, the existing one renamed Warren Street and a new Eastern one direct to Euston concourse? |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
wrote:
Maybe Euston Sq could have two entrances, the existing one renamed Warren Street and a new Eastern one direct to Euston concourse? Er, why have 2 names for the station? Just call it Euston, and have it connected to the existing LUL station in some way (preferably inside the barriers) at the Euston end and also have an exit onto the Euston Road. There is a bit of a rebuild going on at Euston[1] at the moment to provide lifts to the LUL concourse (presumably with a later plan for some to the platforms, else that's a bit pointless) - could something not be done as part of that work, I wonder? [1] Among other things this is to provide retail space off the concourse so the shops in the middle of it can be removed to create more circulating space. Finally! Neil |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
In message .uk, at
09:52:00 on Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Colin Rosenstiel remarked: Last time I was there trains which run from Peterborough to Liverpool St were not advertised beyond Colchester at Peterborough. I've seen them advertised to Shenfield. And I agree there won't be many people wanting "The Liverpool St train", and pointing at a northbound DMU and asking "is that the Liverpool train"; but if there were, then the advertised destination of the other one isn't relevant. Indeed, failing to advertise it to "Liverpool St" would actually make the situation worse. -- Roland Perry |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 11:54:21 on Mon, 2 Jun 2008, David Cantrell remarked: What's so confusing about Liverpool St? Is it just because trains from there don't go to Liverpool? Cos if it is, I fear there's an awful lot of renaming to do! eg, London Road in Brighton doesn't have any services to London. The confusion is quite simple: many tourists, especially from north America, habitually leave off the "street", so a train to "Liverpool" and a train to "Liverpool St", are synonymous. It used to be great fun at Cambridge a few years ago. From the same platform services ran to, "London Kings Cross", "Kings Lynn", "London Liverpool Street" and "Liverpool Lime Street". Good game, good game... |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 12:13:19PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
on Mon, 2 Jun 2008, David Cantrell remarked: What's so confusing about Liverpool St? Is it just because trains from there don't go to Liverpool? Cos if it is, I fear there's an awful lot of renaming to do! eg, London Road in Brighton doesn't have any services to London. The confusion is quite simple: many tourists, especially from north America, habitually leave off the "street" so a train to "Liverpool" and a train to "Liverpool St", are synonymous. Next you'll be telling me that the Washington Square station in New York confuses tourists who expect to be able to get a train from there to Washington! Are these people too stupid to look at a map? I mean, last time I was in Paris and wanted a train to Italy (Rome, to be specific) I didn't just head for the Place d'Italie. -- David Cantrell | Hero of the Information Age I don't do .INI, .BAT, or .SYS files. I don't assign apps to files. I don't configure peripherals or networks before using them. I have a computer to do all that. I have a Macintosh, not a hobby. -- Fritz Anderson |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
|
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
In message .uk, at
12:47:00 on Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Colin Rosenstiel remarked: They don't advertise it to Liverpool St because any sane person (I used to think that included you, Roland), would take the first train to King's Cross and the tube to reach Liverpool St. Yes, that's the reason for obfuscating the destination. -- Roland Perry |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
In message , at 12:17:49
on Tue, 3 Jun 2008, David Cantrell remarked: The confusion is quite simple: many tourists, especially from north America, habitually leave off the "street" so a train to "Liverpool" and a train to "Liverpool St", are synonymous. Next you'll be telling me that the Washington Square station in New York confuses tourists who expect to be able to get a train from there to Washington! Are these people too stupid to look at a map? I mean, last time I was in Paris and wanted a train to Italy (Rome, to be specific) I didn't just head for the Place d'Italie. You are still looking at it backwards. This is not about people who want to go to the *further away* place thinking they've found a remarkably quick/cheap wormhole via a similarly named local place. It's about people who want the *nearer* place accidentally getting on a train to the *further away* place, because both trains start from the same station, and (in your example) they catch a train to Washington DC in error, when they wanted Washington Square. -- Roland Perry |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Neil Williams wrote:
wrote: Maybe Euston Sq could have two entrances, the existing one renamed Warren Street and a new Eastern one direct to Euston concourse? Er, why have 2 names for the station? Just call it Euston, and have it connected to the existing LUL station in some way (preferably inside the barriers) at the Euston end and also have an exit onto the Euston Road. There is a bit of a rebuild going on at Euston[1] at the moment to provide lifts to the LUL concourse (presumably with a later plan for some to the platforms, else that's a bit pointless) Where are these lifts going in? I've been through Euston quite a bit lately, but was obviously too asleep to notice. - could something not be done as part of that work, I wonder? The subterranean space between the existing station and the Circle line platforms is not exactly uncluttered, though - there are the foundations of the two office blocks in front of the station slap bang in the way, and an extensive underground car-park and taxi rank. You can get to the car-park if you turn left instead of right at the bottom of the escalator down to the tube station booking hall. Thinking about it, the car-park must be underneath the tower blocks. That means you could convert some of that space into a passageway to get as far as Euston Square itself (the grassy bit along Euston Road), from where i assume construction would be quite easy. You'd want to plonk another entrance in there, so people could go from the corner of Gordon Street and Euston Road to the Circle platform. The tunnel would, with the present layout, be outside the gateline a la the Khyber Pass of yore - it could perhaps similarly double as a pedestrian subway. Would that cut off road access to the underground bits, though? At what level is that? I have a vague idea that the floor level of the taxi rank is higher than of the LU booking hall, so a passageway could go underneath it. There is definitely car-park at that level, though, and i don't know where the access to that is. Loss of some or all car-park would not be a disaster, though; i can't think of any good reason for people to be parking at Euston anyway. How does the level of the Euston booking hall compare to the Circle platforms, though? You'd need to build a new bridge over the platforms to terminate this new passageway, which would thus be at the same height as the existing Euston Square booking hall (such as it is). Would that be at the same level as the Euston hall, or higher? Also, exactly how far east do the Circle platforms go? The westernmost point of the existing station is, i reckon, about level with the eastern edge of the Network Rail tower block. Perhaps when we have our utl meet, we can all pop down there and take some measurements. It'd be interesting to see how much we could get before the anti-terror squad turned up and shot us all. tom -- 102 FX 6 (goblins) |
London Broadgate station and that old fashioned 'junction' suffix
In the meantime Euston Square is a useful is a little secret for those
in the know, far from the madding crowd. The mass parade of commuters between it and Euston on a daily basis (sometimes including me if I'm running a bit late) would suggest it's far from a secret. Yes, well, that *is* why they renamed it to Euston Square. -- Mark Brader, Toronto | "I can't tell from this... whether you're | a wise man or a wise guy." --Ted Schuerzinger |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk